Who were the most humane colonists in the New World? Or did everyone

File: Frontenac_with_the_Indians.jpg (47KB, 397x585px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 397x585px

>>3186166
>humane colonists

This would usually be an oxymoron. However, the French were notorious for marrying natives for the sake of alliances along other things.

> The French were eager to explore North America but New France remained largely unpopulated. Due to the lack of women, intermarriages between French and Indians were frequent, giving rise to the Métis people. Relations between the French and Indians were usually peaceful. As the 19th-century historian Francis Parkman stated:

> "Spanish civilization crushed the Indian; English civilization scorned and neglected him; French civilization embraced and cherished him"
—Francis Parkman

Pic related is literally Frontenac participating in a tribal dance

>>3186166
The French. They were pretty decent to the Native Americans in comparison to their colonial counterparts. They were more interested in building one-sided trade relationships with North American tribes, rather then exterminating them. Plus the French stuck to their forts and cities so relations were relatively healthy.
Although, they could only afford to do this due the face they had slave labor in Haiti.
But by far, French were the most humane.

File: Cardinal_de_Richelieu_mg_0053.jpg (41KB, 469x599px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 469x599px

>>3186166
>>3186176
>To boost the French population, Cardinal Richelieu issued an act declaring that Indians converted to Catholicism were considered as "natural Frenchmen" by the Ordonnance of 1627:

> "The descendants of the French who are accustomed to this country [New France], together with all the Indians who will be brought to the knowledge of the faith and will profess it, shall be deemed and renowned natural Frenchmen, and as such may come to live in France when they want, and acquire, donate, and succeed and accept donations and legacies, just as true French subjects, without being required to take no letters of declaration of naturalization."[4]

> A literal German-killer, Protestant-aiding Roman Catholic cardinal declaring tolerance for native americans

>>3186176
So, which one assilimated to one's culture more? The French or the Natives? Or was the culture evenly adopted by both sides?

>>3186204
They literally spawned a new ethnic group, Métis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tis_in_Canada

The natives should have been slaughtered like the filthy savages they are. War mongering tree folks deserve worse than what they got.

File: colonies.jpg (593KB, 1280x1795px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 1280x1795px

>>3186166
French where best, lots of love and real feelings involved.

>>3186216
>Schutt und Schnee abladen verboten

Kek

>>3186204
Both sides kept their own cultures I would argue. The French weren't ones for forced conversion. Their primary interest was utilizing Native American knowledge of the land to gather furs for trade. There wasn't really a conflict because it was economically beneficial for both groups to leave the other alive.

>>3186176
>French are good guys
t. Francis (Frenchman)
colour me surprised

I believe the Pennsylvania Quakers were pretty OK guys

What about Scandinavian colonialism? I heard from one source the Finns got along well with the Natives

>>3186166
Unironically Spain.
>Muh Conquistadors!
Yeah, sure, but then.
>Founded way before Nation-state retardation, Spain considered every native in the colony a subject so long as they consider their king the king and are catholic.
>Inclusive as fuck: native elites were promoted to colonial nobility.
>Pretty much founded cities from scratch most of the time.
>Natives were freed from slavery.
>Natives consist most of their population.
>Colonists have few problems marrying natives.

Inb4 "Muh Casta System." Which was mainly Peninsular autism and didn't reflect the reality of life in the Colonies.

>>3186193
wait, Richelieu was a real person

Well... i know only of the spanish colonization of New Granada, so i will try to keep it based on what i know.

>Spanish arrive to the colombian highlands after dying in droves on a futile expedition because of a conquistador who was in some serious shit because of his debts
>They find the most developed area of the americas aside from the two big states of the triple alliance and the Inca empire.
>They conquer it swiftly and without much problem, it was just a change of overlord for the muisca.
>First census: 400k natives in the cundiboyacense highlands.
>Abuse the shit put of natives because pagans, and also their different laws refarding tribute and land.
>Second census 20 years later: 40k natives.
>Natives abused so much that even the crown steps in and provides some law defending pagans from upstart hidalgos who tought they could become nobility when the kingdom didn't allow it.
>Establish the encomienda system: Now indios work to pay their "liege" because of the "generosity" of introducing them to the christian faith.
>Still not enough, population begins to rise because mestizos and inmunity to the deadliest diseases but indios are still fucked
>The crown takes some lands in the middle of nowhere but filled with indios and gives them the chance to own those lands for themselves.
>Indios agree and the crown and natives are happy for some 200 years.
>Independence begins in the colonies, upstart criollos want lands and start looking at the reservations.
>Natives realize they don't want a republic if they want to keep their lands.
>Natives fight for the spaniards, lose the war (pastusos still buttmad about what Bolívar did there)
>Republic(s) declared, now we are all citizens and equal under the law! But that means indios can't have their ancestral lands.
>Massacre indios, displace them and put them to work in plantations.

That's more or less what happened in Colombia, give or take some indian nobility.

FRANCE WAS BRUTAL THEY WERE JUST IRRELEVANT IN AMERICA.IF YOU SEE WHAT THEY DID IN VIETNAM,HAITI OR AFRICA YOU WILL SEE FRECH THOUGHT PROCESS. FRANCE HAD NO REAL PRESENCE IN LOUISIANA SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NATIVES.STOP BEING RETARDED PEOPLE

It depends if you mean the colonising power or the colonising people. The British Empire wasn't that bad, but British colonists were. Same goes for Australians.

>>3189630
what did he mean by this?

Tell you one thing ironically as many people say the Irish faced horribly discrimination, Irish soldiers and frontiersmen were absolutely brutal to the Natives, and the protestant Irish were the ones doing all the scalping.

>>3190433
we already have a scizo all caps tripfag, we don't need a namefag too

>>3186214
>glorifies mass slaughter
Who is the real savage?

>>3190502
I AM INFORMATIVE.
MY PHONE GOT WET SO I CAN ONLY WRITE WITH CAPS FROM IT

>>3190496
Probably thought he was a fictional character from the Three Musketeers or something

>>3190507
The indians

>>3190390
Well, doesn't sounds so bad after the fact than was a conquest. 200 years of autonomy for the indios? Normally that was confered to allied tribes than helped conquer others.

>they said /his/ wasn't fench

>>3186176
>be french
>be too weak in N. America, even against natives
>pretend to be a good boy

That's literally it. France was never humane elsewhere, where they had enough force to stop the farce. Cortés participated in native politics too and nobody would call him humane.

>>3189606
Basically this and nobody would discuss it if it wasn't for the conquest itself (which is the only thing people knows anyways).

The french benevolence was product of french absentism. The spanish benevolence a product of Spain actually getting involved.

>>3190390
>>3190769
It was actually similar to this situation in all the empire, with the obvious regional variations.

>>3190433
Does adding namefags names to filters hide their posts?

Unironically, it was Spain.

>>3186176

> Spanish crushed the indians

What the fuck???

Now im very upset. Spaniards were more civilized with the people of the new world than any other.

In fact, look how many indians are in southamerica.

Bartolome de las Casas was the guy OP is looking for.

>>3186216
>'By 1875, the French conquest was complete. The war had killed approximately 825,000 indigenous Algerians since 1830. A long shadow of genocidal hatred persisted, provoking the French author to protest in 1882 that in Algeria, "we hear it repeated every day that we must expel the native and if necessary destroy him." As a French statistical journal urged five years later, "the system of extermination must give way to a policy of penetration."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria?wprov=sfla1

>>3191048
>Spaniards were more civilized with the people of the new world than any other.
Imagine the others...
>Bartolome de las Casas
was the guy who wrote about the atrocities commited for generations by the Spaniards.

Literally this entire board is that one really annoying kid who took French in high school and won't let anyone forget it